Pelasgian Religion less imaginative.
We may more boldly rely upon a general indication, which is offered to us by the religious systems both of Rome and of Troy, in comparison with that of Greece.
The large account of Roman deities furnished by Saint Augustine, in his ‘De Civitate Dei,’ constitutes for us the principal representation of the great work ofVarro, now lost, on the ‘Antiquitates Rerum Divinarum.’ Notwithstanding the multitudinous development of the theurgic system, the ‘De Civitate’ tends to support the belief that it was not vivified, like the system of the Greeks, by the intense pervading power of a vigorous and prolific imagination. The ‘Fasti’ of Ovid may perhaps be referred to as sustaining the same opinion. And Heyne in his commentary on Virgil has observed upon the comparative dulness and dryness of the early mythology of Rome:Italici mythi longe a Græcæ fabulæ suavitate absunt; nec varietas grata inest[520].
In a later portion of this work[521]I shall endeavour to show, that a similar character apparently attaches to the religious system of Troy: not so much a purity or simplicity, as a comparative poverty and hardness; and an indisposition in the inventions to assume those graceful forms, of which the Grecian Theo-mythology, as exhibited in Homer, is so full.
And again, when we pass from Homer to Hesiod, we find a great mass of religious fable, either added by the later poet, or grown up in the interval between the two. Hesiod’s depositories are much more numerously peopled: but we have passed at once from the poetry of a theogony to its merest prose, when we compare his manner of touch or handling, and his ideas on these subjects, with those of Homer. And, as on other grounds we may consider Hesiod to represent the Pelasgian side of the Greek mind, we seem justified in referring the distinctive tone of his mythology in some degree to his Pelasgian characteristics.
But independently of confirmation from the case of Troy, and from the tone of Hesiod, the character of the old Italian mythology, so devoid of imagination, force, and grace, leads us to ascribe these properties, when we find them abound in the Greek supernaturalism, to its non-Pelasgian, that is, to its Hellenic source.
Its ritual development fuller.
When, however, we turn to another form of development in religious systems, we find the case entirely different: I mean the development in positive observances of all kinds, and in fixed institutions of property and class. Here the religion of Rome was large and copious. Polybius has left upon record, in a most remarkable passage, his admiration of the Roman system ofδεισιδαιμονία, which had, he says, been so got up, and carried to such a point, that it could not be exceeded. It was all done, in his opinion, on account of the multitude. Were States composed of the wise, the case would have been different: but as the people are full of levity and passion,λείπεται τοῖς ἀδήλοις φόβοις καὶ τῇ τοιαύτῃ τραγωδίᾳ τὰ πλήθη συνέχειν[522].
Not less remarkable is the testimony of Dionysius; who, while he praises Romulus for the severe simplicity of what he caused to be taught and held concerning religion, and for the expulsion of immoral fables and practices, says that he arranged for his people all that concerned the temples of the gods, their consecrated lands, their altars, their images, their forms, theirinsignia, their prerogatives and their gifts to man, the sacrifices in which they delight, the feasts and assemblies to be celebrated, and the remissions of labour to be granted in their honour. In no other newly founded city could be shown such a multitude of priests andministers of the gods[523], who were chosen, too, from the most distinguished families[524].
The Fasti of Ovid give an idea of the manner in which the Roman Calendar brought the ceremonial of religion to bear upon the course of life. For some centuries an acquaintance with the Calendar was the exclusive property of the sacred order[525]; and the priesthood turned to its own power and profit the knowledge, which afterwards filled the pages of that characteristic work.
Again, we shall have occasion, when considering the distinctive character of Troy, to notice that the political and ritual forms of religion appear to have been much more advanced there, than with the Greeks. This difference will naturally connect itself with the stronger Pelasgian infusion in the former case. We shall then find that of the two great kinds of sacred office, one only, that of theμάντις, and not that of the priest, seems at the time of Homer to have appertained to the Hellenic races.
And it is not a little curious to observe that, when Saint Paul arrives among the Athenians, the point which he selects for notice in their character and usages, after all the intermixtures they had undergone, is still this, that they areδεισιδαιμονέστεροι[526], peculiarly disposed to religious observances; and that, not contented with the gods whom they suppose themselves to know, they have likewise a supernumerary altar for ‘the Unknown God.’ Nor are we the less warranted to connect this peculiarity with the original and long preserved Pelasgian character of Athens, because that city had, forcenturies before, become a peculiarly apt representative of the full Greek compound: for a system of ritual observance has a fixity, which does not belong to mere opinion; and, when once rooted in a country, has powerful tendencies to assume such a solidity as survives vicissitude: perhaps in some degree on account of its neutral and pacific character, and of the power it leaves to men of separating between outward observance and inward act.
Although the opinion has been entertained, that from the earliest ages it was the exclusive privilege of the first-born to offer sacrifice, it appears most probable that the separate function of priesthood was, like other offices and professions, one of gradual formation. Whether the primitive institution of sacrifice was spontaneous or commanded, every man, that is to say, every head of a family, was, I shall assume, at first his own offerer or priest[527]. Then, as the household developed into the community, the priestly office, in the first stages of political society, as a matter of course appertained to the chief.
He, by the necessity of natural order, originally united in his own person the great functions of
1. Father.2. Teacher.3. Priest.4. King.5. Proprietor.6. Commander.
The severance of these offices successively would arrive sooner or later, according as the progress made in numbers and wealth was rapid or slow. Concentration of employments in a single hand marks the primitive condition or retarded movement of society, while the division of labour is the sign of more speedy and more advanced development. Even the annals of the peopleof Israel furnish instances in which we trace, at periods when these offices had undergone division under divine authority, vestiges of their former union. It appears that, besides Moses, who consecrated Aaron and his sons by divine command, Joshua, Samuel, and Saul[528]on certain occasions offered sacrifice. The exclusive character of priesthood has been impressed upon it, under Divine Revelation, by positive ordinance, and for a special purpose[529].
Order of Priests not Hellenic.
The Hellenes in Homer appear to exhibit it in its earlier state of union with the office of civil government; and the Pelasgians to display it as a function which has indeed become special and professional, but only on that self-acting principle which, in the progress of society, leads to division of labour.
If we suppose the case of two races, one of them inhabiting a rude and barren country in a state of perpetual poverty and warfare, and then recently, by a descent upon more fertile soils, brought into contact with civilised life: the other of them addicted from a much earlier period to pursuits of peace and industry, inhabiting plains, and accustomed to form agricultural settlements; there will be no cause for wonder upon our also finding that the latter of these races has a professional priesthood, while the former has none; but that the sacrificial office remains in the private dwelling with the father of the family, and on public occasions with the head of the civil government.
This appears to have been the state of facts as between the Trojans of Homer who had a priesthood, and the Hellenes who had none: and the difference may beprincipally referable to the different condition and history of the Pelasgian and the Hellic races: while other causes, belonging to the respective characters of the races, may have contributed their share towards the production of this curious result. Partly the greater personal energy and self-reliance of the Hellic tribes, but partly also the earlier and older ease, wealth, and fixity of the Pelasgians, are the probable reasons why, at the point of time exhibited in the writings of Homer, we find priesthood properly a Pelasgian, but not yet properly an Hellenic, and only to a limited extent an adoptive, institution.
Thus far, then, we have a presumption, to be greatly strengthened as I trust hereafter, that the Greek religion owed to the Hellenes its imaginative, and to the Pelasgians its sacerdotal and ceremonial development. And this presumption is, I think, in entire accordance with what we should reasonably anticipate, from relations otherwise known to have subsisted between the two races. I now pass on to the subject of language.
Contributions to language.
In attempting to illustrate the relations of Pelasgians to Hellenes through the medium of the affinities and contrasts between the Greek and Latin languages, I am aware that I venture upon ground which requires to be trodden with great circumspection. For the Latin nation may possibly have contained within itself some ethnical element not dissimilar to the Hellenic, as well as one substantially corresponding with the Pelasgian, factor of the Greek people. And again, there is a very extended relation of the two languages to a common root in the Sanscrit. The number of words traceable to such a root has recently been stated at 339 in the Greek, and 319 in the Latin tongues[530].We must not then, it will justly be observed, infer from the simple fact of resemblance between a Greek and a Latin word, that the one has been borrowed or directly modified from the other.
Let us begin by considering the just effect of these remarks, and inquiring whether they do not still leave space enough for an useful examination.
I begin from the assumption, that there was a deep and broad Pelasgiansubstratumboth in the Greek and the Roman nations. It is thought, and it may perhaps be justly thought, that a dominant tribe of Oscans, who were a nation of warriors and hunters, came among the Pelasgi of Italy, as the Hellenes came among the Pelasgi of Greece. But while we may properly assume the identity of the Pelasgian factor in the two cases respectively, it is quite plain that the compounds or aggregate characters are broadly distinguished, and represent an assemblage and admixture either of different qualities, or else of the same qualities in very different proportions. Therefore we are justified in laying it down as a general rule, that whatever is found in the language of the two countries alike was most probably Pelasgian: since, if that portion of the aggregate language had been supplied from those elements in which the nations differed, it is likely that a corresponding difference would have been found to prevail between their modes of speech.
Again, I think we must distinguish between the simple fact of derivation from an original source in common, and those degrees or descriptions of resemblance which show that any given words not only had one source at first, but that they continued together up to a certain point in the formative process, so as to be capable, from their shape, of derivation, not only fromthat root, but also one from the other. For instance, the Greekἐγὼand the Latinegoare both stated to be derived from the Sanscritaham. But here it is quite plain that they have not only set out from the same point, but travelled along the same road to their journey’s end, as the Greek and Latin words are identical. On the other hand, if we take the Greekτέσσαρες, and the Latinquatuor, both are referred to the same Sanscrit root,chatur: but neither of them can well have been derived from the other, and each is more nearly related to the root than it is to the other. Or if we take the Latinanser, the Greekχὴν, and the English ‘goose,’ these words scarcely appear to have a connecting link: but it is found, and a remote or mediate connection established, by means of the Germangans. Instances might easily be multiplied.
In single cases, where the relationship of words is only of the kind last exemplified, it would not be safe to draw inferences to the effect of their being respectively due to this or that element in the composition of the nation.
But where there is such a similarity as to show either that the word has advanced nearly to its mature state before the Greek and Latin forms began to divaricate, or that the Latin form may have been derived from the Greek in an early stage of the history of the language, orvice versâ, then it seems just to refer the resemblance of terms to the existence of a powerful common element in the two peoples.
And further, if we shall find that the words standing in close kindred are capable of classification with reference to their sense, then, when we have once constituted a class of such words, it may be justifiable to add fresh words to it on the strength of a more remoteaffinity, in virtue of the presumption already created. For instance, if the names of the commonest objects and operations of inanimate nature are generally in close correspondence, we may infer a relation between other words which are in the same class as to meaning, though they may be not so nearly alike, with more confidence than if the reasoning as to this latter section were not supported by the former. On this principle I proceed in the collections of words given below.
Of course the utmost care must be taken to exclude those words which have been copied from Greek into Latin, after the literary ages of Rome had begun, and according to the practice which Horace has described and recommended[531].
Niebuhr’s propositions.
Niebuhr was, I believe, the first person to draw from philological sources a conclusion as to the character and habits of the Pelasgians. He proceeded upon the threefold assertion, (1) that the words common to the two tongues are presumably Pelasgian, (2) that they for the most part refer to tillage and the gentler ways of life, and (3) that we may hence conclude that the Pelasgians were a people given to peace and husbandry. And conversely, that the words which widely differ in the two tongues are not Pelasgian, and that the pursuits which they indicate must have been more peculiarly characteristic of some other race, that contributed to make up the composition of the Roman nation. The principles thus assumed by Niebuhr[532]appear, when placed under due limitation, to be sound; and the only question is, whether they are supported by the facts of the case. If in a given language we find the words indicative of a certain turn of life to have been derived froma particular race, which forms part of the nation speaking that language, while other words, referable to other habits and pursuits, have been supplied by other races also numbered among its constituent parts, it is just to read the characters of those races respectively through the character of the words that they contribute to the common tongue. For the question is really one of forces which may have been adjusted with as much accuracy, as if they had been purely mechanical. The ordinary reason why a word of Pelasgian origin prevails over a word of Hellenic origin with the same signification, or the reverse, is that it is in more or in less common use: and the commonness of use is likely to be determined by the degree in which the employment or state of life, with which the word is connected, may belong to the one race or the other.
The survey taken by Niebuhr appears to have been rapid; and the list of words supplied by him is very meagre. Bishop Marsh[533]and other authors have, with a variety of views, supplied further materials. The most comprehensive list, to which my attention has been directed, is in the ‘Lateinische Synonyme und Etymologieen’ of Döderlein[534]. The subject is essentially one which hardly admits of a fixed criterion or authoritative rule, or of a full assurance that its limits have been reached. Mindful of the reserve which these considerations recommend, I should not wish to lay down inflexible propositions. But I venture to state generally, that those words of the Latin and Greek tongues, which are in the closest relationship, are connected
1. With the elementary structure of language, such as pronouns, prepositions, numerals.
2. With the earliest state of society.
3. With the pursuits of peaceful and rural industry, not of highly skilled labour.
Classes of words which agree.
Examples, numerous enough to show a most extensive agreement, will readily suggest themselves under the first head. To illustrate the other propositions, though it can only be done imperfectly, I will follow both the positive and the negative methods. The first, by comparing words which denote elementary objects, both of animate and inanimate nature, or the simplest products of human labour for the supply of human wants, or the members of the human body, or the rudiments of social order. The second, by contrasting the words which relate (1) to intelligence and mental operations, (2) to war, and (3) to the metals, the extended use of which denotes a certain degree of social advancement. It will I hope be borne in mind, on the one hand, that these lists are given by way of instance, and have no pretension to be exhaustive: and, on the other hand, that exceptions, discovered here and there, to the rule they seem to indicate, would in no way disprove its existence, but should themselves, if purely exceptions, be treated, provisionally at least, as accidental.
ἔρα, terraἀήρ, aerαἴθηρ, ætherαὖρα, aura
ἀστήρastrumἀστέροςstellasterula
κοίλον, cælumἥλιος, solσε-λήνη, lunaνὺξ, nox(Ζεὺς)Διὸς, diesπόντος, pontus
ἃλςsalθάλασσαsalum
πόλος, polus
λυκὴinλυκάβας,luxλεύσσειν
χείμων, hyemsἔαρ, verὥρη, horaἑσπέρα, vesper
νέφοςnubesnebula
(νιψ)νιφος, nix, nivisδρόσος, ros
ὕετοςfluviuspluvia
ῥῖγος, frigusχάμαι, humusπευκὴ, pix
κῆποςsepesσῆκος
λακκὸς(a pit), lacusλάχυς
ἄμπελος, pampinusὕλη, sylvaφύλλον, foliumῥόδον, rosaλαὰς, lapisἄγρος, agerἄρουρα, arvumἄντρον, antrumφῦκος, fucus
σπέοςspeluncaσπήλαιον
ἴον, violaσκόπελος, scopulusὕδωρ, sudor.
θὴρ, feraλύκος, lupusκαπρὸς, aperλέων, leoἔγχελυς, anguillaἴχθυς, piscisὠκύπτερος, accipiterκύων, κύνος, canisὄϊς, ovisβοὺς, bosταῦρος, taurusὓς, susἵππος, equusπῶλος, pullusοὖθαρ, uberἄμνος, agnusκριὸς, ariesἀλώπηξ, vulpes.
δόμος, domusοἶκος, vicusθύραι, foresκληΐς, clavisἕδος, sedesαἰθάλη, favillaθάλαμος, thalamusλέχος, lectus.
οἶνος, vinumἔλαια, oleaἔλαιον, oleumὦον, ovumμῆλον, malumσῦκον, ficusτρύγη, frugesἀ-τρύγετος, triticumσῖτος, cibus
γλάγος,lac, lactisγάλα, γάλακτος
κάλαμος, calamusκρέας, caroμέλι, melδαὶς, dapesκοινὴ, cœna.
ἐσθὴς, vestisχλαῖνα, læna.
ἄροτρον, aratrum
ζεῦγοςjugum.ζύγον
ναῦς, navisλίμην, limenἐρετμὸς, remusκυβερνήτης, gubernatorἀγκύρα, ancoraποὺς, pes.
κεφαλὴ, caputκόμη, comaὦμος, armus[535]μῆρον, fe-mur, morisπαλάμη, palmaποὺς, pesὄδους, οντος, dens, dentisλάπτω, labrumδείκνυμι, digitusλὰξ, calxἦπαρ, jecurἔντερον, venterἕλκος, ulcus
κέαρcorκαρδία
γόνυ, genuμύελος, medullaὄστεον, os (ossis)ὤψ, os (oris).
πατὴρ, paterμήτηρ, materυἷος, filius
φρήτηρfraterφρήτρη
ἕκυρος, socer
χήρηheresχηρωστῆς
γένοςgensgenus.
(ῥέζειν)ῥέξας, rex[536]ἐλεύθερος, liberτέκτων(στέγω), cf. tectum (tego)φὼρ, furπαλλακὶς, pellex.
νεύω, numenθεὸς, deusὄνομα, nomenμόρφη, formaἲς, visῥώμη, Roma, roburκνίσση, nidorὄδμη, odorφήμη, fama
φάτιςfatumφάτον
βίος, vita[537]μόρος, morsὕπνος, somnusὀδύνη[538], odiumἄλγος, algor
γεύω,gustusγεύσω
ἦνις, annus
λήθηlethumλήτω
δόσις, dosδῶρον, donum
φυγὴfugaφύζα
αἴων, ævum.
μέγας, magnus
παῦροςparvuspaucus
πλατὺς, latus
ἄγχοςἄγκιστρονuncusorangustusἄγοστος
κυρτὸς, curtusγῦρος, curvusπυρρὸς, furvus
ἐρυθρὸςruberrufus
παχὺς, pinguisβραχὺς, brevis
βραδὺςtardusβαρδὺς
χαὸς, cavusτέρην, tenerπλέος, plenusμείων, minorμάσσων, majorνέος, novusἄλλος, aliusὄρθος, ordo[539]ὕπτιος, supinusγραῦς, gravis
λεπτὸςlevislentus
λεῖος, lævisγενναῖος, gnavusδέξιος, dexterὅλος, solusἡδὺς, suavisπικρὸς, acris[540].
Classes of words which differ.
A very extensive list of perhaps one hundred or more verbs might be added, which are either identical or nearly related in the Greek and Latin languages: but it would not, I think, materially enlarge or diminish the general effect of those words which have been enumerated. We have before us about one hundred and eighty words in the classes of substantive and adjective only. They might nearly form the primitive vocabulary of a rustic and pacific people. Two exceptions may be named, which may deserve remark. It will be observed, that the senses are inadequately represented, only two of them, smell and taste, being included. The other three are also connected in the two languages as follows: touch, by the relation ofθιγγάνωandtango: sight, byεἴδωandvideo: hearing, by the evident connection of the Latinaudirewith the Greekαὔδη, the proper name in Homer for the voice.
The other marked exception is that of religion. With slender exceptions, such asθεὸς=deus, the connection ofrexwithῥέζω, ofnumenwithνεύω, ofλοιβὴwithlibo, and that ofἀράομαι,ἀρητὴρwithorare,orator,ara, there is a considerable want of correspondence in the leading words, such asἱερὸς,ἅγιος,θύω,βῶμος,νῆον,ἄγαλμα,σέβω,μάντις, of the one tongue, andsacer,sanctus,pius,templum,vates,macto,mola, of the other. The greater part of the Pelasgian vocabulary must have been displaced on the one side or on the other: and as it is in Greece that we have much fuller and clearer evidence of the advent of a superior race, which gave its own impress to life and the mind in the higher departments of thought, we must conclude that this substitution probably took place in Greece, and was of Hellenic for Pelasgian words.
The proposition of Niebuhr with respect to terms of war, appears to me to be in the main well sustained by the facts. Let us take for example the following list: which appears to show that, in this department, with the exception of a pretty close relation betweenβέλοςandtelum, and a more remote one betweenπόλεμοςandbellum, possibly also betweenloricaandθώρηξ, there is hardly in any case the faintest sign of relationship between the customary terms employed in the two languages for the respective objects.
telumβέλοςensisξίφοςgladiusφάσγανονcuspismucroαἰχμήaciesgaleaκυνέηhastaδόρυἔγχοςscutum[541]ἄσπιςclypeusσάκοςloricaθώρηξocreaκνημίςvaginaκολεόςbellumἌρηςπόλεμοςpræliumὑσμίνηpugnaμάχηcurrusδίφροςrhedaἅρμαrotaκυκλός(Hom.)ternoῥυμὸςtubaσάλπιγξclassicumcastraκλισίαιtabernaculum[542]κλισίηarcusβιὸςτόξονsagittaἰὸνὀϊστός.
It can hardly, I think, be questioned, that this class of words presents on the whole a very marked contrast to those which were before exhibited. And as we seethe highest martial energies of Greece manifestly represented in the Hellenes, we may the more confidently adopt that inference as to the habits of Hellenes and Pelasgians respectively, which the contrast between the two languages of itself vividly suggests.
Before quitting this head of the subject, let us notice the wide difference in the channels by which the two languages arrive at the words intended to represent the highest excellence. For ‘better’ the Greeks haveβέλτερος, fromβέλος, ‘a dart,’ and for ‘best,’ἄριστος, fromἄρης, ‘war;’ while the Latins are contented withoptimus, formed from a common root withopes, ‘wealth.’
There is almost as remarkable a want of correspondence between the two languages in respect to the higher ideas, both intellectual and moral, as in regard to war.
In three words indeed we may trace a clear etymological relationship, but in two of the cases with a total, and in the third with an important change in the meaning.
1. Theμένοςof the Greeks becomes the Latinmens; so that a particular quality, and that one belonging to theπάθηrather than theἤθηof man, comes to stand for the entire mind.
2. The Greekἄνεμοςis evidently the Latinanimus: or, that word which remains the symbol of a sensible object in Greek becomes the representative of mind in Latin. The adjectiveἀνεμώλιοςis indeed capable of a metaphysical application: but it means ‘of no account[543].’
3. Theθυμὸςof the Greeks is thefumusof the Latins: and the case last described is exactly reversed.
The three great words in the early Greek for the unseen or spiritual powers of man’s nature areνόος,φρὴν, andψυχή. They perhaps correspond most nearlywith the three Latin wordsmens,indoles, andvita[544]. There is not the slightest sign of conformity or common origin in any of the cases; althoughνόοςis akin tonosco[545].
In two other very important words we find perhaps derivation from a common root, but nothing like a near or direct relationship. The Greekἀρετὴmay proceed from the same stock with the Latinvirtus, and in like mannerἄτηmay have the same source asvitium.
Upon the whole we may conclude, that in this important class of words the resemblances are scanty and remote. It will be seen that under the head of general ideas there is not included any clear case of correspondence in a mental quality; and all the resemblances appear to rest, mediately or immediately, upon sensible objects and phenomena.
As respects the terms employed in navigation, it will have been observed, that they are all connected with its rudest form, that of rowing; and that they do not include the words for mast, yard, or sail, in all of which the two tongues appear to be entirely separated.
Again, it may be stated generally, that society in its very earliest stages has little to do with the use of metals. This rule will be of various application, according to their abundance or scarcity in various countries, and according to the facility with which they are convertible to the uses of man. As the objects of enjoyment multiply with the continuance and growth of industry, the precious metals become more desirable with a view to exchange. But the principal metal for direct utility is iron: and of that, the quantity known and used by the Greeks would appear, even in the time of Homer, to have been extremely small. Theuse of metal for works of art, and probably also for commercial exchange, would seem to have been derived from Phœnician, not Pelasgian sources; and we have no proof that when Homer lived they had acquired the art in any high degree for themselves.
The absence of any great progress in the use of metals may thus be set down as a sign of Pelasgianism. And now let us compare the Greek and Roman names for the metals respectively: